Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-19: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == Generic comment about the use of the word "file" (which means an object in a file system for me) rather than something more generic (no suggestion to offer though) ? -- Section 1 -- The first 2 sentences are quite repetitive. Is it about "offline delivery" or "exchange" ? At this point of reading the document, it is still unclear in my mind what it is about... The rest of the I-D made it clear. Unclear which UC is either implemented or potential (even with the appendix); could also add forward references to the appendix UC). Should the implementation(s) be referenced if they are public ? -- Section 1.1 -- Unsure why a "data set" should be named? The choice of words does not seem the best fit (even though if I have no suggestions). -- Section 2 -- Like some other ADs, I wonder why "The context data part MUST... except" is not a "SHOULD" as there are exceptions. What is the expected behaviour when the timestamp in the filename does not match the meta data ? -- Section 2.1 -- There is a "SHOULD" so when are exceptions/deviations acceptable ? The description of "simplified" is really too simple ;-) I would also appreciate that the order of the list matches the following sub-sections order. Thank you for using RFC 8792. -- Section 4 -- Did the authors think about adding the party creating the file and adding an optional signature in the file itself? == NITS == -- Section 1 -- The first 2 sentences are quite repetitive. Missing "." At the end of the 1st § Why is "Factory Default Setting" capitalised ? -- Section 1.2 -- Why using the future tense "shall be" rather than "are" ? -- Section 2.1.1 and others -- Suggest to warn the reader that the examples are further in the text in a different section. -- Section 6 -- A "," is missing. _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
